‘Maternity period has to be counted as part of bond period'
Granting relief to a doctor, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period and directed Thanjavur Medical College to return her certificates.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by E. Krithikaa who obtained her MBBS degree in 2014. She was allotted a seat in MS (General Surgery) in Thanjavur Medical College for the academic year 2016-17 which was a three year course.
As per the prospectus for admission to postgraduate courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges (2016-19), the candidate should sign a bond for a sum of ₹40 lakh with an undertaking that he/she would serve the State for a period of not less than two years.
In addition, the candidate was required to submit the original educational certificates to the medical college. The appellant had signed the bond and also submitted her original certificates.
After the appellant obtained her PG degree, she was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at Thittakudi Government Hospital in 2019. She reported for duty and served in the hospital for 12 months. Following her pregnancy, she went on maternity leave. Since she had served the government only for 12 months and not for 24 months of bond service, the hospital authorities declined to return her original certificates.
A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that the condition set out in the prospectus has to give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The Supreme Court declared that women have a fundamental right to benefits arising out of the situation of maternity. Maternity leave was integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court observed that the appellant no doubt is not a government employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the government for two years. But a regular State government employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for 12 months as per the amended Service Rules. The appellant was also entitled to the very same treatment applicable to any government employee. The fact that she was only in the service of the government without being a regular employee is irrelevant.
When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14. Applying the legal fiction laid down in Kavita Yadav case, the appellant must be taken to have served the government even during her maternity period. In other words, the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period, the court observed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
13 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Maternity leave can be included in bond period: Madras High Court
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the state government to return the educational certificates of a doctor, which were withheld on the ground that she had gone on maternity leave without completing the mandatory two-year service done by postgraduate doctors. A bench of justices G R Swaminathan and K Rajasekar observed that the 12-month maternity period should be counted as part of the bond period. The judges made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by the doctor, E Krithikaa, challenging an order passed by a single judge rejecting her previous petition. During the admission to MS (General Surgery) at Thanjavur Government Medical College, Krithikaa signed a bond for the sum of Rs 40 lakh with an undertaking that upon completion of the three-year course, she would serve the government for at least two years. She was also required to submit her original certificates. After graduating in August 2019, she served as an assistant surgeon at Thittakudi GH for a year and went on maternity leave. Saying that she did not complete the bonded service period, the authorities refused to return her certificates, a decision upheld by the single judge. Hearing her appeal, the division bench cited several SC judgments declaring that every woman has a fundamental right to maternity benefits. The judges referred to various provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, especially section 27, which stated that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any contract of service. Thus, the bench said the bond condition should give way to the rights conferred on women under the Act. It added that though the doctor is not a regular government employee, she is entitled to the same treatment.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Count maternity leave period of doctor as part of bond period: HC
Madurai: The 12-month maternity leave period of a doctor, who signed a bond to serve the state govt for two years while joining a PG course at Thanjavur Medical College, must be counted as part of the bond period, the Madras high court recently ruled, and directed the authorities to return her original certificates. The court was hearing the appeal filed by E Krithikaa. She was allotted a seat in the MS (general surgery) course at Thanjavur College for the 2016-17 academic year. According to the prospectus, candidates must sign a bond for 40 lakh, undertaking to serve the state govt for at least two years. After obtaining her PG degree, she was appointed as an assistant surgeon at Thittakudi govt hospital in 2019. She served for 12 months before going on maternity leave. Since she served the govt for only 12 months, the authorities declined to return her original certificates. In 2022, she filed a petition seeking a direction to return her original certificates. However, the single bench dismissed her petition. Challenging the order, Krithikaa filed the present appeal in 2023. A division bench of justice G R Swaminathan and justice K Rajasekar observed that an educational certificate is not a marketable commodity and hence cannot be retained or withheld for any reason. "As per the conditions set out in the prospectus, the appellant has to serve the govt of Tamil Nadu in one of their hospitals for two years. This condition must give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This is especially so because the honourable Supreme Court declared that any woman has a fundamental right to the benefits arising out of her situation of maternity. Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution," the judges observed. The judges further noted, "The appellant is not a govt employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the govt for two years. But a regular state govt employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for 12 months as per the amended service rules. We believe that the appellant is also entitled to the same treatment applicable to any govt employee. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14 of the Constitution. " The second half of the bond service turned out to be the maternity period for the appellant. Applying the legal fiction laid down by the Supreme Court, the appellant must be considered to have served the govt even during her maternity period. Allowing the appeal, the judges set aside the order of the single bench.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
‘Maternity period has to be counted as part of bond period'
Granting relief to a doctor, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period and directed Thanjavur Medical College to return her certificates. The court was hearing an appeal filed by E. Krithikaa who obtained her MBBS degree in 2014. She was allotted a seat in MS (General Surgery) in Thanjavur Medical College for the academic year 2016-17 which was a three year course. As per the prospectus for admission to postgraduate courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges (2016-19), the candidate should sign a bond for a sum of ₹40 lakh with an undertaking that he/she would serve the State for a period of not less than two years. In addition, the candidate was required to submit the original educational certificates to the medical college. The appellant had signed the bond and also submitted her original certificates. After the appellant obtained her PG degree, she was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at Thittakudi Government Hospital in 2019. She reported for duty and served in the hospital for 12 months. Following her pregnancy, she went on maternity leave. Since she had served the government only for 12 months and not for 24 months of bond service, the hospital authorities declined to return her original certificates. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that the condition set out in the prospectus has to give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Supreme Court declared that women have a fundamental right to benefits arising out of the situation of maternity. Maternity leave was integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that the appellant no doubt is not a government employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the government for two years. But a regular State government employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for 12 months as per the amended Service Rules. The appellant was also entitled to the very same treatment applicable to any government employee. The fact that she was only in the service of the government without being a regular employee is irrelevant. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14. Applying the legal fiction laid down in Kavita Yadav case, the appellant must be taken to have served the government even during her maternity period. In other words, the maternity period of 12 months has to be counted as part of the bond period, the court observed.
